Predicting student performance from educational interaction data requires models that are both accurate and sufficiently transparent to support meaningful intervention, while demographic information introduces an additional risk of unfair predictions. This study investigates a multi-objective framework that combines reinforcement learning-based multiple instance learning (RL-MIL), adversarial debiasing, and preference-conditioned hypernetworks for student-at-risk prediction. MIL represents each student as a bag of weakly labeled interactions, while an RL agent selects informative instances for downstream classification. Two hypernetwork variants are evaluated to determine whether a user-defined preference scalar can continuously control the trade-off between predictive performance and Equalized Odds. The underlying RL-MIL baseline achieves strong classification performance, but both hypernetwork extensions exhibit mode collapse: changing the preference weight produces little systematic movement along the intended fairness-performance frontier. The failure is associated with objective dominance, weak gradient propagation through the conditioning mechanism, and interactions between dynamically generated parameters. The results show that fairness objectives can be incorporated into an interpretable RL-MIL pipeline, but preference conditioning alone does not guarantee controllable multi-objective behavior. Robust fair RL-MIL therefore requires explicit mechanisms for gradient balancing, objective separation, and stability analysis.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Overview of proposed novel architecture. Black arrows indicate data/parameter flow. Red arrows indicate backpropagation. A flowchart showing how the two reinforcement learning agents for instance selection and adversarial debiasing, the MIL classifier and a preference based parameterization hypernetwork are connected and how data flows through the architecture.
Figure 2. Simple correlation matrix calculated using the technically incorrect assumption of interval scaling for each categorical variable to simplify correlation calculation. The relationship between assessment score or click statistics and has_passed is comparatively the strongest (excluding the obviously high correlation between sum_click and click_days). Correlations involving protected features are low, but tend to be higher for scores and click statistics than for has_passed, indicating that the causal model proposed in the methodology section could have some merit. TODO
Framework
Pooling
Preference
F1 score (performance) ( ± SD)
Equalized Odds (bias) ( ± SD)
Baseline
Attention
0.9245 ( ± 0.0018)
0.1681 ( ± 0.0044)
Baseline
Max
0.9187 ( ± 0.0012)
0.0998 ( ± 0.0288)
Baseline
Mean
0.9228 ( ± 0.0017)
0.1055 ( ± 0.0160)
Baseline
Rep-The-Set
0.9280 ( ± 0.0010)
0.1426 ( ± 0.0237)
Task-agnostic Hypernetwork
Attention
0.0
0.9261 ( ± 0.0011)
0.1344 ( ± 0.0007)
Task-agnostic Hypernetwork
Attention
1.0
0.9244 ( ± 0.0020)
0.1356 ( ± 0.0176)
Table 1. Shortened list of performance metrics for the best models. Metrics for preference values between 0 and 1 are similar to those shown, which can be confirmed by looking at Table 5 in Appendix B .
Pooling
Framework
Tested Hypothesis
T value
p value
Mean
Task-agnostic Hypernetwork
Preference 0 > Preference 1
-0.1782
0.8630
Mean
Task-aware Hypernetwork
Preference 0 > Preference 1
0.1859
0.8697
Max
Task-agnostic Hypernetwork
Preference 0 > Preference 1
-0.3635
0.7257
Max
Task-aware Hypernetwork
Preference 0 > Preference 1
6.8235
0.0208 (*)
Attention
Task-agnostic Hypernetwork
Preference 0 > Preference 1
0.8337
0.4286
Attention
Task-aware Hypernetwork
Preference 0 > Preference 1
-1.2058
0.3512
Table 2. T test of classification F1-score between preference 0 and preference 1 for both hypernetwork architectures and all pooling methods.
Baseline
Task-agnostic Hypernetwork, preference 0
Task-agnostic Hypernetwork, preference 1
Age Band (98.9774 %)
VLE Clicks: homepage (97.1877 %)
VLE Clicks: homepage (97.4434 %)
Code Presentation (91.8919 %)
Assessment: TMA (86.8152 %)
Age Band (93.0241 %)
Gender (89.6640 %)
VLE Clicks: forumng (85.9021 %)
Disability (86.8517 %)
VLE Clicks: homepage (89.2988 %)
VLE Clicks: oucontent (81.3733 %)
Assessment: TMA (86.7421 %)
Region (88.8605 %)
Num Of Prev Attempts (81.3002 %)
VLE Clicks: forumng (85.9386 %)
Module Presentation Length (86.1943 %)
Imd Band (80.0950 %)
Gender (80.3871 %)
Table 3. Common instance types sorted by bag presence in percent for the two extreme preference settings 0 and 1 of the task-agnostic hypernetwork and the baseline method using mean pooling.
Sparsity
Consistency
Model
Preference
Pooling
Gini Coeff.
HHI Score
Spearman’s ρ
Jaccard (K=5)
Demographics (%)
Task-agnostic
0.0
Rep-The-Set
0.4793
0.0614
0.9983
1.0000
12.0%
Task-agnostic
1.0
Rep-The-Set
0.4796
0.0613
0.9972
1.0000
12.0%
Task-aware
0.0
Rep-The-Set
0.4939
0.0559
0.9980
0.6667
15.2%
Task-aware
1.0
Rep-The-Set
0.4932
0.0558
0.9985
0.6667
15.2%
Task-agnostic
0.0
Attention
0.5275
0.0621
0.9982
1.0000
18.7%
Table 4. Sparsity, Consistency and Demographics Reliance metrics for several model configurations. Baseline values are only available for mean pooling due to unexpected maintenance on the Snellius national supercomputer.
Figure 3. Schematic depiction of the expected causal patterns between observed variables in our problem setting. Arrows point from causal ancestors to their children. A schematic display of the structural causal model we will use to adjust classification reward strength.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4. Number of students for each combination of protected features. TODO
Figure 5. Summary plots of assessment scores separated by the protected features education, gender and age. The most noticeable relationship can be seen between education and assessment score, with post graduate qualification performing better and no formal qualifications performing worse than all other levels. For age and gender, no clear pattern emerges. TODO
Figure 6. Distribution of the number of click days for each resource, split by gender, age and education. Again, the most clear but very subtle pattern can be seen by comparing the peak of the no formal qualifications level against the peak of all other education levels. For the mentioned level, many resources are clicked on less often than for other levels. TODO
Figure 7. Summary plots of pass rates split by module, gender and age. Although there are stark differences between the courses, there is no clear effect for either age or gender. TODO
Framework
Pooling
Preference
F1 score (performance) ( ± SD)
Equalized Odds (bias) ( ± SD)
Baseline
Attention
0.9245 ( ± 0.0018)
0.1681 ( ± 0.0044)
Baseline
Max
0.9187 ( ± 0.0012)
0.0998 ( ± 0.0288)
Baseline
Mean
0.9228 ( ± 0.0017)
0.1055 ( ± 0.0160)
Baseline
Rep-The-Set
0.9280 ( ± 0.0010)
0.1426 ( ± 0.0237)
Task-agnostic Hypernetwork
Attention
0.0
0.9261 ( ± 0.0011)
0.1344 ( ± 0.0007)
Task-agnostic Hypernetwork
Attention
0.1
0.9266 ( ± 0.0018)
0.1408 ( ± 0.0053)
Appendix
Table 5. Full list of performance metrics for the best models. Most values are means over 5 different seeds (for mean and std). Due to maintenance on the Snellius national supercomputer, for the Task-aware Hypernetwork Mean, Max and Attention pooling had to be carried out on only one seed.
Framework
Pooling
Seed
Preference
F1 score (performance) ( ± SD)
Equalized Odds (bias) ( ± SD)
Baseline
Mean
0
0.9230 ( ± 0.0005)
0.1019 ( ± 0.0656)
Task-agnostic Hypernetwork
Mean
0
0.0
0.9323 ( ± 0.0015)
0.1690 ( ± 0.0010)
Task-agnostic Hypernetwork
Mean
0
0.1
0.9301 ( ± 0.0015)
0.1711 ( ± 0.0011)
Task-agnostic Hypernetwork
Mean
0
0.2
0.9301 ( ± 0.0011)
0.1691 ( ± 0.0003)
Task-agnostic Hypernetwork
Mean
0
0.3
0.9316 ( ± 0.0030)
0.1721 ( ± 0.0020)
Task-agnostic Hypernetwork
Mean
0
0.4
0.9319 ( ± 0.0015)
0.1707 ( ± 0.0018)
Appendix
Table 6. Performance metrics for all combinations of framework, pooling method, seed and preference. Due to maintenance on the Snellius national supercomputer, for the Task-aware Hypernetwork Mean, Max and Attention pooling had to be carried out on only one seed.
Algorithmic fairness studies how automated decisions distribute errors, opportunities, and harms across groups, and how to measure and reduce disparities.
Fairness is an important aspect of decision-making in multi-objective reinforcement learning (MORL), where policies must ensure both optimality and equity across multiple, potentially conflicting objectives. While single-policy MORL methods can learn fair policies for fixed user preferences using welfare functions such as the generalized Gini welfare function (GGF), they fail to provide the diverse set of policies necessary for dynamic or unknown user preferences. To address this limitation, we formalize the fair optimization problem in multi-policy MORL, where the goal is to learn a set of Pareto-optimal policies that ensure fairness across all possible user preferences. Our key technical contributions are threefold: (1) We show that for concave, piecewise-linear welfare functions (e.g., GGF), fair policies remain in the convex coverage set (CCS), which is an approximated Pareto front for linear scalarization. (2) We demonstrate that non-stationary policies, augmented with accrued reward histories, and stochastic policies improve fairness by dynamically adapting to historical inequities. (3) We propose three novel algorithms, which include integrating GGF with multi-policy multi-objective Q-Learning (MOQL), state-augmented multi-policy MOQL for learning non-statoinary policies, and its novel extension for learning stochastic policies. We evaluate our algorithms across various domains and compare our methods against the state-of-the-art MORL baselines. The empirical results show that our methods learn a set of fair policies that accommodate different user preferences.
Umer Siddique, Peilang Li, Yongcan Cao
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Texas at San Antonio
Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) trains a team of agents that share one environment and learn their policies together. Training maximizes the team return, and a high return does not imply that the rewards are shared fairly among the agents in every episode. Testing is an established way to discover the failures of deep reinforcement learning, yet few methods address the fairness of MARL. In this work, we propose FairTest, a search-based testing approach that seeks the unfair executions of a MARL policy. The design combines search guidance with test prioritization. The guidance scores each candidate with three fitness functions. One measures the fairness of the runs already performed, another predicts the fairness from abstract states and fairness features, and the third reads the decision uncertainty from the policy. Crossover and mutation derive further candidates from the observed executions. The prioritization ranks the candidates by the predicted fairness and the decision uncertainty, so that the runs reach the candidates where failures are expected. FairTest is evaluated on three environments and two MARL algorithms, and four baselines are given the same budget. It detects the most fairness failures compared to three baselines with statistical significance and large effect sizes. The failure count exceeds that of the strongest baseline by 221% on average and coverage improves by an average of 23%.
Xiaotong Wang, Xuan Xie
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macao SAR, China
Deep reinforcement learning (RL) agents achieve strong performance by optimizing scalar reward functions. However, once deployed, the policies of these RL agents are often rigid and costly to adapt to new performance criteria. For instance, an agent trained to maximize expected cumulative reward may not accommodate previously unknown stakeholder preferences. Existing approaches to achieve fairness, a type of preference, in RL typically assume that such preferences are known a priori and require complete retraining of the policy under a fairness-oriented metric. Inspired by inference-time alignment in large language models, we investigate the problem of steering a pretrained RL policy toward welfare-based fairness objectives at inference time without updating the base policy's parameters. We formalize inference-time fairness alignment as a policy shaping problem and propose a multiplicative policy shaping framework that adjusts action probabilities using action-dependent welfare scores, thus requiring no modification to the base policy. Our framework is general and compatible with any deep RL agent. Through extensive experiments across multiple domains, we demonstrate that inference-time policy shaping substantially improves welfare-based fairness objectives while preserving core task performance.
Umer Siddique, Peilang Li, Conor Wallace +1
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Texas at San Antonio